The threat of gay marriage.

I found this article on The Boston Globe called "The threat from gay marriage" by Jeff Jacoby. It was published on July 3, 2003. I found the article to be annoying and obnoxious. It falls short of truly understanding the issues involved in the granting of marriage rights to gay partners. You can read the full article (the first of two parts) from the link given above. I've decided to analyze the article and add a perspective that I suspect Mr. Jacoby can't - that from the view of someone who is fighting for those rights. It is, after all, easy to sit back and casually talk about giving or not giving rights to individuals when you have those rights. I suppose it's roughly the same as talking about people who are dying in some third world country from lack of water as you are sipping from your bottle of chilled bottled water.

In truth, same-sex marriage is not an issue about which Americans are ambivalent. Nearly every survey taken since the issue first emerged in the late 1980s confirms that they are firmly against it. Six times between 1989 and 1998, for example, the CNN/Time poll asked whether marriages between gay men or lesbian women should be legalized. No more than 31 percent ever said yes; no less than 64 percent ever said no.

''Solid majorities ... do not endorse legally sanctioned gay marriage,'' concludes Karlyn Bowman, an expert on public opinion at the American Enterprise Institute. In a recent compilation of surveys dating back to 1973, she shows that Americans have in many ways become more accepting of homosexuality. They are far more likely to have homosexual friends and to affirm the right of gays and lesbians to equality in job opportunities. Polls find majority support for homosexual teachers, doctors, politicians - even clergy. But not marriage. Americans adamantly resist the idea of men marrying men or women marrying women..

Just for the sake of argument, let's discuss the issue of slavery and human rights. When it was beneficial for white slave owners and the public at large to benefit from slavery, the general population was not in support of ending slavery. The fight to end slavery was a long and painful one for this country. We eventually came to the correct conclusion that slavery was wrong and that people are entitled to their rights as human beings. My point is this: the act of giving or denying the rights of citizens is not a popularity contest. It is an absolute. You do it because it is the right thing to do. If a citizen is in good standing with the society that he/she lives in, there is no adequate reason to deny any rights to that person if everyone else has those rights. Gay people seem to fit into the category of being in good stand with society - at least, society collects taxes from us and allows us to vote. Unless people can come up with better reasons than "I just don't like gays so I don't want them to be able to get married", or "we will be sanctioning homosexuality", they had better get used to the idea of granting equal rights to gay people, because legally, they don't have a leg to stand on.

And they are right to resist. For if same-sex marriage is made lawful, marriage itself will be gravely harmed.

Would someone please explain this one to me so that I can understand it? Explain it to me like I'm a six year old, because I don't get it. How on earth will allowing gay people to marry threaten current marriage laws? How will their marriage even effect what you have today? Churches will still have the ability in all their wisdom to deny gay people the privledge of getting married in their church. Nothing what so ever would change in regards to religion. The various denominations are still at liberty to preach that gay people are sinful and without social merit, etc., and are totally free to deny them the right to marry as well as welcoming gay people into their churches.

The issue of marriage is a civic matter. The issuance of a marriage license is given through town/city clerks who work for the state governments. Along with a marriage license is the granting of hundreds of state rights and benefits along with many federal benefits. There is no reason what so ever that these should not be granted. Religion is not the issue and any threat to straight marriage is not the issue. If anyone reading this feels differently, please feel free to open up a dialog in the comments entry below. I honestly do not see a threat to marriage, unless of course, you are equating marriage to an exclusive country club and want to keep it all to yourself. I sincerely hope that you are not cheapening marriage by doing that.

It is not by coincidence or on a whim, after all, that human societies since time immemorial have restricted marriage to opposite-sex unions. That restriction is part of a system of social taboos whose purpose is to protect families from the caustic power of unrestrained sexuality. Together with the ancient taboos against adultery and incest and the Western taboo against polygamy, the heterosexuality of marriage helps shield women and children from exploitation, cements the union between fathers and mothers, and bolsters the ethos of monogamy on which the dignity of marriage depends.

Weakening those traditional norms boosts sexual freedom, but as sexual freedom rises, the stability of families and marriage declines. The slippery slope is real, as America's experience since the sexual revolution makes all too clear. Is that a reason to condemn everything that expands sexual options? No. (How many Americans want to return to the era before reliable birth control?) But we should recognize that those options aren't free. We pay a price when we weaken common standards, especially those that pertain to marriage and sex. And the price of same-sex marriage - as even some ''queer'' theorists openly predict - may be the ruin of traditional family life.

What planet are you living on? We are not talking about "sexual freedom" here. Gay and lesbian people had sexual freedom long ago. We didn't ask for it - we seized it. With the overturning of sodomy laws in this country, we are no longer criminals for expressing it. You say that "We pay a price when we weaken common standards, especially those that pertain to marriage and sex". What standards would be weakened by giving two individuals the ability to publicly celebrate their bond with marriage? Another way to look at it would be to counter your comment with a question: What is the price we pay by sticking with the old standards that we now live with? We have an entire segment of society who are now second-class citizens. Will our tax rates be adjusted to be on a second-class tear? I don't think so. It's time to put up or shut up. If we cannot partake in ALL that this society has to offer, we shouldn't be required to pay for it!

Ah, but to say that is to run smack into what has become a familiar taunt: How does my committed gay relationship threaten your marriage? Puh-leez! I defy you to produce a shred of evidence that marriage for gays will harm anybody else.

Well, here's a shred of evidence: The Boston Globe reports that in the three years since Vermont extended near-marriage status to same-sex civil unions, nearly 5,700 gay and lesbian couples have registered their relationship. Of those couples, close to 40 percent, or more than 2,000, include at least one partner who used to be married.

Just a shred - but a jarring one. Of course, it doesn't mean that Vermont's civil union law broke up 2,000 straight couples. It does mean that where there used to be 2,000 traditional marriages, there are now 2,000 ruptured ones - and 2,000 gay or lesbian unions in their place. Were some of those marriages doomed from the outset? Probably. But it's also probable that some of them weren't. In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable.

I wouldn't even call that a shred of evidence. I would call it your vivid imagination going wild with you. People's desires are not something that can be reduced to statistics that will make any sense. There are undoubtedly many reasons why a marriage fails. And all of this of course depends on an assumption that sexual orientation is a choice. "I'm tired of being straight. I'm going to try being gay for awhile". It doesn't work that way. There are those who try to live a straight life who are intrinsically gay. Living a straight lifestyle doesn't make them gay - DESIRE does. At any rate, I think you would be better served focusing on the dismal statistics of straight marriage. With a divorce rate of almost 60%, I don't know how it could get much worse.

We live in a society that wants to stop gays from getting married. At the same time, I can go on any game show and watch a bunch of women compete in a contest to see who will "win" the man they are competing for. The winner will be able to either claim her one million dollar prize, or she can marry him. HOW DISGUSTING! How the hell is gay marriage going to do further harm to something like that? It isn't gay people who are harming marriage. Straight society did that all by itself.